Stetzer Electric Gets Anti SAPP-ed

UPDATE: JUNE 2013: Dave Stetzer and his Stetzer Electric, Inc. were forced to drop their frivolous lawsuit against the victim of their dangerous defective product.  The victim won his Anti-SLAPP motion (see below for information on this motion) only partially because Stetzer added crazy claims that his victim was also another person who tried to do business with the company and somehow engaged in fraud by asking the company for shipping information.  Since the fraud claim could not be part of the SLAPP motion, the judge had to let Stetzer’s lawsuit stand but only on the fraud issues.  The victim then filed a demurrer against Stetzers crazy claims showing they couldn’t file a lawsuit against him for actions related to some other unknown person.  Even they knew they had NO CASE and so they were forced to drop all other causes of action that the judge had permitted to stand in the SLAPP ruling.

ORIGINAL STORY:  SLAPP: Stetzer’s latest attempts to silence their victim. 

They’ve now gone so far to shut people up from alerting the public as to their dangerous products (surge suppressor/power strip) that they’ve filed a lawsuit against one of their VICTIMS who suffered smoke and toxic fume inhalation when the Stetzerizer power strip he had purchased caught fire.  The victim’s partner was also harmed and their home could have burned to the ground.  Stetzer doesn’t want the public to know that his Chinese made “dirty electricity” EMF products are dangerous. It’s called CENSORSHIP.

This website and the video investigation on it are public service consumer alerts. 

Stetzer filed a lawsuit against the victim which is clearly a SLAPP — A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP),  intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. 

The typical SLAPP plaintiff (Stetzer and Stetzer Electric, Inc.) does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.

SLAPPs take various forms but the most common is a civil suit for defamation — YEP!  That’s exactly what Stetzer and Stetzer Electric, Inc. filed, along with a claim for business interference.  They apparently believe there should be no interference with their ability to sell dangerous products to the public.

As a result, the victim was forced to file an anti-SLAPP motion, a special motion that a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint  when it arises from conduct that falls within the rights of free speech and petition. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.

A CONSUMER ALERT ABOUT A DANGEREOUS STETZER PRODUCT is an issue of public interest.